Animal and management factors influencing grower and finisher pig performance and efficiency in European systems: a meta-analysis

Abstract

A meta-analysis on the effects of management and animal-based factors on the performance and feed efficiency of growing pigs can provide information on single factor and interaction effects absent in individual studies. This study analysed the effects of such factors on average daily gain (ADG), feed intake (FI) and feed conversion ratio (FCR) of grower and finisher pigs. The multivariate models identified significant effects of: (1) bedding ( P < 0.01), stage of growth ( P < 0.001) and the interaction bedding × lysine ( P < 0.001) on ADG. ADG was higher on straw compared with no bedding (710 v. 605 g/day). (2) FI was significantly affected by stage of growth ( P < 0.01), bedding ( P < 0.01), group composition ( P < 0.05), group size ( P < 0.01), feed CP content ( P < 0.01), ambient temperature ( P < 0.01) and the interaction between floor space and feed energy content ( P < 0.001). Pigs housed on straw had a lower FI in comparison with those without (1.44 v. 2.04 kg/day); a higher FI was seen for pigs separated by gender in comparison with mixed groups (2.05 v. 1.65 kg/day); FI had a negative linear relationship with group size, the CP content of the feed and ambient temperature. (3) Stage of growth ( P < 0.001), feed CP ( P < 0.001) and lysine content ( P < 0.001), ambient temperature ( P < 0.001) and feed crude fibre (CF) content ( P < 0.01) significantly affected FCR; there were no significant interactions between any factors on this trait. There was an improvement in FCR at higher ambient temperatures, increased feed CP and lysine content, but a deterioration of FCR at higher CF contents. For ADG, the interaction of bedding × lysine was caused by pigs housed without bedding (straw) having higher ADG when on a feed lower in lysine, whereas those with bedding had a higher ADG when on a feed higher in lysine. Interaction effects on FI were caused by animals with the least amount of floor space having a higher FI when given a feed with a low metabolisable energy (ME) content, in contrast to all other pigs, which showed a higher FI with increased ME content. The meta-analysis confirmed the significant effect of several well-known factors on the performance and efficiency of grower and finisher pigs, the effects of some less established ones and, importantly, the interactions between such factors.Keywords: efficiency, finishers, growers, meta-analysis, pigs ImplicationsThe effects of management and animal-based factors on daily gain, feed intake (FI) and feed efficiency of grower and finisher pigs were analysed. A number of factors were identified as having significant effects on these traits, including the effects of less well-established ones, such as the effects of grouping by gender on FI. Interactions between factors were also confirmed; for example, the interaction between bedding and feed lysine content on daily gain. The results may contribute towards the improvement of efficiency of pig systems through a better knowledge of the various factors that influence it. IntroductionFeed efficiency is one of the ...

Strategies towards Improved Feed Efficiency in Pigs Comprise Molecular Shifts in Hepatic Lipid and Carbohydrate Metabolism

“…The efficient usage of resources is a major concern in agri-food production. It has been shown that feed efficiency (FE) of pigs is largely influenced by husbandry environment including dietary composition and dietary energy concentration [ 1 , 2 ]. Moreover, animal-intrinsic factors play an important role in improvement of FE.…”

Finishing pigs that are divergent in feed efficiency show small differences in intestinal functionality and structure

“…To date, most research regarding the impact of the gastrointestinal tract ( GIT ) on variation in RFI has been conducted under controlled conditions in one environment [2–4,13], whereby differences in environment, pig age, diet type and selection strategies for RFI used in the different studies may explain the controversial findings [15]. Therefore, we hypothesized that if the size, structure and functionality of the GIT play a role in variation of the RFI in pigs, similar RFI-relationships should be found in low and high RFI pigs which were raised under similar conditions in several environments.…”

Influence of production factors on feed intake and feed conversion ratio of grow-finishing pigs

“…Less is known about the effects of the interaction between various factors that may influence feed efficiency in pigs (DOUGLAS et al, 2015). According to Heck (2009), it is important to have the domain and to act assertively in the main factors that influence the development of pigs in the growing and finishing phases for these steps to achieve high production costs ( VAN HEUGTEN, 2010).…”

“…This procedure could improve animal performance, the cost of production and provide an efficient utilization of feed according to each specific situation (TEDESCHI et al, 2005). This resource allows a joint assessment of the effects of one or more factors of production on a particular livestock parameter (VILLALBA MATA, 2000), which provides knowledge about the operation as a whole (GIBON et al, 1999), in contrast to experimental studies in which only a small number of factors are considered, which contributes to limitations in knowing what factors affect the efficiency in the systems of GF pigs (DOUGLAS et al, 2015). However, the use of mathematical models can support decisions regarding demand in production systems with limited information (data used in the model), which is a normal scenario on a farm (TEDESCHI et al, 2005).…”